Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

[Canceled2]

You apparently did not read but a couple sentences. The authors stated that it did apply to many centurions, but that it MAY have depended on rank and income.

It can be and was used in different contexts to mean child, child servant (or just a person younger than the speaker), beloved servant and younger partner in a homosexual relationship. In this context it is quite clear that it at the very least meant beloved servant.

Luke used the words "entimos doulos" to describe the pais. Entimos doulos means beloved servant.

Further, in Matthew the centurion uses the word doulos to describe his other servants and only uses pais to describe the sick servant. This contrast indicates that the servant was, likely, his lover or, at the least, that the pais was of special importance.

You are a stubborn ass. I used your source which was not definitive and in fact stated it likely they were allowed to marry. This does not even deal with the fact that most centurians (who being centurians had a high rank) had common law wives. Yet here you are trying to force a view onto the text not even knowing what the hell you are talking about. Jumping from a high ranking officer in the Roman army seeking Christ's healing for a beloved young servant to he must be gay.

Moving on; Pais is literally child servant. To use this term merely describes the age of the servant/slave. It was often used to show affection to a young servant that is true, because it carried with it the idea of a beloved son.

Luke actually used the term doulos about the slave in question dork. He did so because he was a doctor and in fact his entire book renders a much less emotional account than Mathew's, because of his profession, and unlike Mathew he was not a Jew, but a Gentile. So here, as in other parts of Luke's narrative, he states the literal. This servant was a doulos, meaning bond slave. This child was born into slavery.

 

[Canceled1]

Pagan, no. It's just a stupid ad hom.

It's obvious that the servant was special, in some way, to the centurion.

You leapt to the homosexual connection, not I.

Is there something you need to get off your chest, or is homosexual biblical interpretation your profession?

 

[DamnYankee]

Exactly my point! No one told you how you should feel. You experienced feelings for the opposite sex without being taught.

The same applies to homosexuals. They are not taught to feel that way.

Again, my point is that society told me the truth, that those feelings were normal moral natural and healthy, thereby helping me to justify those feelings.

 

[Timshel]

You are a stubborn ass. I used your source which was not definitive and in fact stated it likely they were allowed to marry. This does not even deal with the fact that most centurians (who being centurians had a high rank) had common law wives. Yet here you are trying to force a view onto the text not even knowing what the hell you are talking about. Jumping from a high ranking officer in the Roman army seeking Christ's healing for a beloved young servant to he must be gay.

Straw man. I have stated numerous times that this is not a clear indication that this was a homosexual couple. The evidence is not at all conclusive.

Moving on; Pais is literally child servant. To use this term merely describes the age of the servant/slave. It was often used to show affection to a young servant that is true, because it carried with it the idea of a beloved son.

You ignored all the other definitions given by your source. Pais does connote youth, but it was often used, including in the bible, just to imply the servant was younger than the master, not necessarily a child.

Luke actually used the term doulos about the slave in question dork. He did so because he was a doctor and in fact his entire book renders a much less emotional account than Mathew's, because of his profession, and unlike Mathew he was not a Jew, but a Gentile. So here, as in other parts of Luke's narrative, he states the literal. This servant was a doulos, meaning bond slave. This child was born into slavery.

Luke was more literal how?

Luke 7:2 says entimos doulos. That is why it is translated as...

And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.

Luke 7:7 uses pais.

 

[Timshel]

Again, my point is that society told me the truth, that those feelings were normal moral natural and healthy, thereby helping me to justify those feelings.

But if you had been raised in SF? Your attitude is... There but for the grace of God I go down. lol

 

[Timshel]

The fact, that it is not conclusive was the reason I brought it up.

 

[DamnYankee]

But if you had been raised in SF?

If I was raised there the end result probably wouldn't be different, but for someone else, you perhaps, say someone raised by two queers, his natural attraction to females wouldn't necessarily be reinforced. In fact it may be discouraged.

 

[Timshel]

If I was raised there the end result probably wouldn't be different, but for someone else, you perhaps, say someone raised by two queers, his natural attraction to females wouldn't necessarily be reinforced. In fact it may be discouraged.

You are the one claiming that society/nurture was a major factor in "choosing" your sexuality.

 

[Canceled2]

Straw man. I have stated numerous times that this is not a clear indication that this was a homosexual couple. The evidence is not at all conclusive.
You ignored all the other definitions given by your source. Pais does connote youth, but it was often used, including in the bible, just to imply the servant was younger than the master, not necessarily a child.
Luke was more literal how?

Luke 7:2 says entimos doulos. That is why it is translated as...
And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.
Luke 7:7 uses pais.

The evidence is not even there let alone conclusive of anything...!

Pais, in its usage in Mathew literally mean child servant...period!

As to Luke 7:7 ? Clearly it was used to clarify not only was this a bond servant as 7:2 states, but a child bond servant. Nothing more nothing less!

Luke was a physician, being precise and unemotional would be his style.

You attempt to impose a meaning that can only be found when trolling pro gay web sites. Historically no one, not from the 1st century church to the present, has ever imposed such gross hermeneutics’ onto these passages.

And you and Damo assert that I have stretched meaning when I include homosexuality as one of many sexual sins that Christ would have been including when discussing sexual immoralities? Neither of you could tell me why he would not have included it.

You have not stretched your assertion it is true, you have merely pulled crap out of your ass and called it macaroni instead.

 

[Timshel]

The evidence is not even there let alone conclusive of anything...!

Pais, in its usage in Mathew literally mean child servant...period!

Based on what do you draw this conclusion? Pais is used in several places in reference to adults. I have given other reason to show it was meant to express beloved servant. You do nothing but reassert your claim.

As to Luke 7:7 ? Clearly it was used to clarify not only was this a bond servant as 7:2 states, but a child bond servant. Nothing more nothing less!

You are completely full of shit. 7:2 and 7:7 agree that there was a special affection for the servant. Nothing more, nothing less.

Luke was a physician, being precise and unemotional would be his style.

Yet, he clearly said that there was affection for the servant.

You attempt to impose a meaning that can only be found when trolling pro gay web sites. Historically no one, not from the 1st century church to the present, has ever imposed such gross hermeneutics’ onto these passages.

BS! In every translation of the precise and unemotional Luke, 7:2 expresses the centurion's affection for the servant. Which version or translation are you using?

 

[DamnYankee]

You are the one claiming that society/nurture was a major factor in "choosing" your sexuality.

No, just that society reinforced what was normal moral natural and healthy.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's interesting, this thread was supposed to be a counseling session between Social Conservatives and Libertarians, to see if we could resolve some our differences. It has turned into a mega-page philosophical debate on theology as it pertains to homosexuals. That's really interesting, given that it's an issue not likely to be determined or settled politically in the next election cycle, if ever. When it comes to smaller government, less intrusive government, lower taxes, conservative economics... what the hell does the theological aspects of homosexuality have to do with it? Are you listening to yourselves? You are at odds over issues that do not really relate to the political landscape in front of us. We don't live in a Theocracy, and we never will! If a Social Conservative is elected, they aren't going to implement Christian Law! If a Libertarian Conservative is elected, they aren't going to ban Religion! It's just a silly divisive discord between the two camps, which doesn't need to be as important as we make it out.

This thread was intended to get you to THINK... to examine your OWN shortcomings (even though Damo doesn't think he has any), and to find ways to understand each other better. Do you think you have done that at all? Or was this just another opportunity to rail against religion and call people names, whom you disagree with? You can't dis-include people from the political process because they happen to base their views on their personal religious faith! That is their right as much as it's your right to base your views on secular beliefs. The Constitution doesn't render their opinions invalid or irrelevant, and it doesn't say they can't have a voice in shaping the laws and legislation of our nation. At some point, we all have to get on the same page with this, and it seems silly and futile to just keep pounding away at some personal idealism, instead of finding common ground.

 

[LadyT]

yada...yada...yada....


Okay, let's start the thread by each person listing what you believe to be your biggest flaw or fault, in finding acceptance with "social conservative" or "libertarian" values?

Well Dixie I'm glad you asked.

1) Most of the conservative "leaders" themselves are hypocrites.....kind of hard to take what they say seriously when they can't even abide by the bullshit they spew. (Re: Ted Haggard)

2) A lot of said values are sexist

3) Values are highly objective

4) throughout history said conservative values have been conveniently interpreted to the advantage of those in power or seeking power.

 

[Timshel]

No, just that society reinforced what was normal moral natural and healthy.

You argued that people are taught sexuality by their cultural environment. That clearly implies that in a different environment you or I might be gay. Now you are trying to backpedal and claim that it was somehow natural for you, but maybe not for me or others. That implies that sexual preference is innate. Though you will claim otherwise, you can't have it both ways.

 

[Beefy]

You argued that people are taught sexuality by their cultural environment. That clearly implies that in a different environment you or I might be gay. Now you are trying to backpedal and claim that it was somehow natural for you, but maybe not for me or others. That implies that sexual preference is innate. Though you will claim otherwise, you can't have it both ways.

He's been doing this crap since he's been here. Running around like a screaming ninny claiming sexuality is a choice, and then evading when I let him know that his position means he could choose cock over pussy, something I could not do.

Its senseless.

 

[Minister of Truth]

He's been doing this crap since he's been here. Running around like a screaming ninny claiming sexuality is a choice, and then evading when I let him know that his position means he could choose cock over pussy, something I could not do.

Its senseless.

This is one area I constantly return to when my flamboyance and cosmopolitan nature cause guys to call me gay. I consider the possibility that I might be bi, and then instrospect until I confirm that I find cock to be unappealing. The weird thing is that I don't consider vaginas to be physically attractive. Every other part of the female body is beautiful beyond reason, but not pussies. So there's yet another area for guys to call me names over...

 

[Timshel]

It's interesting, this thread was supposed to be a counseling session between Social Conservatives and Libertarians, to see if we could resolve some our differences. It has turned into a mega-page philosophical debate on theology as it pertains to homosexuals. That's really interesting, given that it's an issue not likely to be determined or settled politically in the next election cycle, if ever. When it comes to smaller government, less intrusive government, lower taxes, conservative economics... what the hell does the theological aspects of homosexuality have to do with it? Are you listening to yourselves? You are at odds over issues that do not really relate to the political landscape in front of us. We don't live in a Theocracy, and we never will! If a Social Conservative is elected, they aren't going to implement Christian Law! If a Libertarian Conservative is elected, they aren't going to ban Religion! It's just a silly divisive discord between the two camps, which doesn't need to be as important as we make it out.

This thread was intended to get you to THINK... to examine your OWN shortcomings (even though Damo doesn't think he has any), and to find ways to understand each other better. Do you think you have done that at all? Or was this just another opportunity to rail against religion and call people names, whom you disagree with? You can't dis-include people from the political process because they happen to base their views on their personal religious faith! That is their right as much as it's your right to base your views on secular beliefs. The Constitution doesn't render their opinions invalid or irrelevant, and it doesn't say they can't have a voice in shaping the laws and legislation of our nation. At some point, we all have to get on the same page with this, and it seems silly and futile to just keep pounding away at some personal idealism, instead of finding common ground.

There can be no easy alliance so long as social conservatives believe they have a right to protection from offenses against their moral sensibilities.

You support theocratic and Christian law now. What else is the basis for laws prohibiting gay marriage? What is the legitimate state interest?

The biggest shortcoming of libertarians is that far too many of them waste their vote on a party that does not share their concerns because the other party might be worse. History shows that even where you claim to agree with us you don't.

Social conservatives don't care about economic liberty either or at least not as much as they care about bashing queers. When in power, they are far more willing to compromise on economics than social issues.

 

[apple0154]

This is one area I constantly return to when my flamboyance and cosmopolitan nature cause guys to call me gay. I consider the possibility that I might be bi, and then instrospect until I confirm that I find cock to be unappealing. The weird thing is that I don't consider vaginas to be physically attractive. Every other part of the female body is beautiful beyond reason, but not pussies. So there's yet another area for guys to call me names over...

Don't beat yourself up, Threedee. As my cousin opined many years ago that's why they're covered with hair.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Don't beat yourself up, Threedee. As my cousin opined many years ago that's why they're covered with hair.

Except women are generally encouraged to shave there, because otherwise guys wouldn't be able to find what we're looking for.

Actually, a recent issue of Maxim had polling about what modern women would like guys to do with their croatches... I think the plurality was keeping them "well-trimmed," but totally shaved was more popular than not at all. Amazing what you can learn from reading...

 

[Timshel]

This is one area I constantly return to when my flamboyance and cosmopolitan nature cause guys to call me gay. I consider the possibility that I might be bi, and then instrospect until I confirm that I find cock to be unappealing. The weird thing is that I don't consider vaginas to be physically attractive. Every other part of the female body is beautiful beyond reason, but not pussies. So there's yet another area for guys to call me names over...

You're gay. I think the vagina is beautiful. Strangely, I don't really find a penis unappealing or appealing. Kind of indifferent. Mine looks fine when something other than my hand is wrapped around it. The male testicles are definitely ugly.